dismissed EB-1A Case: Digital Influencer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 33947609 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a digital influencer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets the classification's initial evidentiary requirements . The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In the underlying petition, the Petitioner claimed to qualify under seven of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x): 
(i) Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
(ii) Membership in associations which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(iii) Published material about the Petitioner in professional or major media; 
(v) Making artistic contributions of major significance to the field; 
(vii) Display of the Petitioner's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
(viii) Performing in a lead or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished 
reputations; and 
(x) Commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the evidence only satisfied the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and denied the petition accordingly. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a personal 
statement and documentation from her YouTube channel. Upon review, she has not established 
eligibility for the reasons below. 
A. Receipt of Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards for Excellence in the 
Field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
To qualify for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted materials concerning the Silver level __ 
I IAward, the TikTok award, and the YouTube award for having 100,000 
subscribers. 1 The Director concluded that the record did not establish that any of these awards were 
recognized beyond the rewarding entities. On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]hese awards are 
internationally and nationally recognized and relevant in the field." Upon review, the Petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims. 
1 We note that the only requirements for the Y ouTube award are being an actively posting channel with 100,000 subscribers 
and complying with various YouTube policies. As such, the record does not indicate that this is an award for excellence, 
as required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 
When considering whether an award is nationally or internationally recognized as reflecting 
excellence in a person's field, we assess factors such as the criteria used to grant the awards, the 
significance of these awards in the person's field, the number of awardees, and limitations on 
competitors. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Here, the record indicates that the winners of the _____ ward are determined through a 
poll of the readers of the Brazilian Times, a regional U.S. publication for the Brazilian-American 
community. While this award is arguably in the Petitioner's field, since it was granted for her work 
as a social media influencer, there is no indication that it is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The only articles the Petitioner submitted regarding this award are from the Brazilian Times, the 
award's co-sponsor, and from the Petitioner's hometown newspaper in Brazil. The record therefore 
does not establish that the Award is recognized beyond a local or regional level in 
the United States or Brazil. Similarly, the only documentation provided regarding the Petitioner's 
TikTok award is the award itself, and there is no evidence establishing the national or international 
significance of this award in her field. 
The record does not indicate that the Petitioner's awards are recognized on a national or international 
level as reflecting excellence in her field. She therefore has not established eligibility under the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
B. Membership in Associations in the Field Which Require Outstanding Achievements of Their 
Members, as Judged by Recognized National or International Experts. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The 
Petitioner seeks to qualify for this criterion on the basis of her membership in the Y ouTube Shorts 
creators' community. The Director concluded that the evidence provided did not establish her 
membership in an association or that any such association required outstanding achievements of its 
members. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner mentions this criterion but does not specify any legal or factual 
error in the Director's conclusions. 
The record indicates that membership in the YouTube Shorts creators' community only requires a 
person to be an active creator of short videos and compliant with Y ouTube policies. While the 
community is invitation-only, there is no indication that the invitations are issued by nationally or 
internationally recognized experts in the Petitioner's field, or that they are only issued to creators with 
outstanding achievements. The Petitioner has not established eligibility under the membership 
criterion. 
C. Published Material about the Petitioner in Professional or Major Trade Publications or Other Major 
Media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted evidence satisfying this criterion. However, upon 
review, we will withdraw this finding, because the record does not establish that any of the publications 
2 We note that the Director stated that the "submitted evidence does not show the petitioner is or was a member of any 
professional association" (emphasis added). There is no requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) that a qualifying 
association be professional in nature; it only has to be an association in the person's field of endeavor. However, since the 
Petitioner has not otherwise established eligibility for this criterion, the error is, at most, harmless. See generally Matter 
of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,350 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing cases regarding non-material errors). 
3 
which published articles about or interviews with the Petitioner are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The documentation regarding the Brazilian Times newspaper states that it has two regional editions in 
the eastern United States, each with a circulation of 16,000 copies. However, the record does not 
contain evidence indicating that this is a relatively large circulation or showing that the Brazilian Times 
is regarded as a major publication. Similarly, the newspaper I I is a local newspaper from 
the Petitioner's hometown with a printed circulation of 4,500 copies and 17,200 website views per 
edition. While a nominally local newspaper may be considered major media, the record here does not 
establish that I I has a relatively large circulation, is nationally prominent in Brazil, or is 
otherwise a major media outlet. Finally, the television channel TV Horizonte is described as "the 
biggest Catholic TV Channel in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil," where the Petitioner's hometown 
is located. This does not establish whether TV Horizonte has high viewership in comparison to secular 
television channels in Minas Gerais or in Brazil as a whole. 
The evidence provided does not establish that any of the published material about the Petitioner comes 
from professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner has not established 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
D. Original Artistic Contributions of Major Significance in the Field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director concluded that the recommendation letters provided to establish eligibility under this 
criterion did not establish how the Petitioner's work majorly influenced her field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that her "petition provided extensive evidence of [her] achievements and contributions 
to the field," and names the other evidentiary criteria she is seeking to qualify under. She further 
claims that her high follower and view counts on YouTube and TikTok establish that her "original 
contributions are substantial and impactfol, with hundreds of videos that went viral." 
Firstly, the Petitioner has not qualified under any of the other evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Secondly, she has provided no legal support for the claim that qualifying under one of 
the other criteria constitutes proof of an original contribution of major significance to the field. Since 
this interpretation of the regulation would nullify the original contributions criterion and contradict the 
requirement that petitioners provide evidence meeting at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we decline to adopt it. 
Finally, popularity is not synonymous with originality or significance. While the Petitioner's videos 
have been viewed millions of times, the record does not include documentation showing how this has 
affected the field of social media influencing. There is no documentation indicating that other 
influencers have adopted the Petitioner's methods or otherwise been affected by her work. The record 
also does not explain which of the Petitioner's contributions is considered original or why. She 
therefore has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
4 
E. Display of the Petitioner's Work in the Field at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
To qualify under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of a I I billboard display, 
as well as an exhibition in the ________________________ an 
organization that seeks to memorialize the history of Brazilian immigrants in the United States. The 
Director concluded that these displays did not occur at artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that since her work is artistic, the exhibitions were artistic as well, and that she 
has therefore established her qualifications under this criterion. However, the record does not support 
this conclusion. 
First, the regulation requires a display of the Petitioner's work product. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.3(B)(l). Both the billboard and the display in the ____ only showed 
the Petitioner's photograph and accompanying explanatory text, rather than her videos. Therefore, 
they are not displays of the Petitioner's work product in her field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not overcome the Director's conclusion that these exhibitions were not 
artistic in nature. A billboard is an advertising medium: while art may be displayed on it, that does 
not make it an artistic exhibition or showcase. The documentation regarding the _____ 
indicates that it is a collection of plaques showing the photographs of various notable Brazilian 
Americans, as well as explanatory text about their work. This is a community history and information 
display, not a display of art. The Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
F. Performing in a Lead or Critical Role for Organizations or Establishments with Distinguished 
Reputations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
While the Petitioner mentions this criterion on appeal, she does not specify what 
establishment or 
organization she has performed a lead or critical role for or indicate what factual or legal errors the 
Director made regarding this criterion. We therefore will not address the issue further. Giday v. INS, 
113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (declining to address a "passing reference" to an argument in a 
brief that did not provide legal support). 
G. Commercial Success in the Performing Arts. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner cannot qualify under this criterion because she does not 
work in the performing arts. However, the record indicates that her YouTube and TikTok videos 
consist of sketches which she acts in. Because acting is a performing art, we will withdraw the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner cannot qualify under this criterion. 
However, upon examination of the record, the evidence provided is insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner has had commercial success as contemplated by the regulation. We acknowledge that the 
Petitioner has a high number of TikTok followers and a popular YouTube channel. However, the 
regulation specifies "commercial" success - that is, success leading to financial profits - and calls for 
evidence such as box office receipts and record sales to demonstrate eligibility. Here, that evidence 
has not been provided. 
5 
The Petitioner has submitted documentation indicating that her Y ouTube videos are monetized, and 
in her response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), she also provided information from an 
analytics website estimating that she could be paid $1,852 to $2,910 per TikTok post, based on 
statistics such as her follower count and engagement levels. However, the website printout 
prominently states that "[t]his is only an estimation and can vary greatly by niche, country, [and] 
audience location." The Petitioner also states on appeal that "videos with such high view counts are 
monetized, generating significant revenue through advertising and sponsorship" and that her "ability 
to monetize these viral videos ... translates into tangible financial success." However, she has not 
provided any documentation of her actual revenues from advertising, sponsorships, or monetization, 
and so has not established her level of commercial success. 
Finally, while the Petitioner's work may have the potential to be highly profitable in the future, all 
petitioners must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time they file the benefit request. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner's potential future commercial success therefore cannot 
establish eligibility under this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement 
or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), she has not 
demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6